M/S. Sanjay Constructions vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Held

The Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained in anticipation of action that the respondents *may* take. Since the agreement had not been executed and no coercive action had been initiated against the petitioner, there was no present cause of action for filing the writ petition. The Court reasoned that it could not issue positive directions at this stage, as the matter was still in the preliminary stages of agreement execution. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the matter at this juncture. The petitioner was granted liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court if and when any coercive action was taken against them. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST revised estimate application or the validity of Clause 35 of the Standard Bidding Document.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sanjay Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated September 18, 2017, which rejected their application for a revised estimate under the GST Act. This rejection was based on Clause 35 of the Standard Bidding Document. The petitioner had been awarded construction contracts for the C.T.E. Building in Bihar. The judgment notes that the agreement for these contracts had not yet been executed, and the communications were preliminary steps towards its execution. The petitioner was concerned about potential coercive action, including forfeiture of their bid amount, if they refused to enter into the agreement, as outlined in Para 31.3 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB).

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition can be entertained in anticipation of coercive action by the respondents when the agreement has not been executed and no coercive action has been taken against the petitioner. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the letter rejecting their revised estimate application under the GST Act and was apprehensive of coercive action, including forfeiture of their bid amount, as per the tender documents if they refused to enter into the agreement. They implicitly argued that the rejection of their application was premature or unjustified, leading to potential adverse consequences. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, represented by the State and the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation (BSEIDC), did not explicitly argue on the merits of the GST revised estimate. Their stance, as reflected in the Court's observation, was that no coercive action had been taken and the agreement was not yet executed. Therefore, they contended that no cause of action had accrued for the petitioner to file the writ petition at this stage.